In article <8peg3q$ckk$1 at panix3.panix.com>, aahz at panix.com (Aahz
Maruch) wrote:
> In article <wk8zt1tp0n.fsf at thecia.net>, Dan Schmidt <dfan at thecia.net>
> wrote:
> >aahz at panix.com (Aahz Maruch) writes:
> >|
> >| I'm calling once again for everyone to please refrain from giving
> >| Python 2.0 answers to questions unless the questioner specifically
> >| mentions Python 2.0. IMO, it unnecessarily complicates things,
> >| because most people asking questions need to use a shipping version
> >| of Python.
> >
> >I started by giving a 1.5 solution (snipped), and clearly marked the
> >list comprehension idiom as only being available in 2.0. Is your issue
> >with presenting 2.0 features as if they were available to everyone, or
> >with just mentioning 2.0 features at all? I was very careful not to do
> >the former.
>> I think at the very least anyone proferring a 2.0 solution should
> clearly mention that 2.0 is not shipping yet. I think it's cruel to
> hold out a carrot in front of someone and then snatch it away.
A third side of the coin is that the messages are archived, and should
be disclaimed not only that Python 2.0 isn't shipping yet, but that the
details *could* (probably won't, except for the details which turn out
to be bugs) change. Else people may see the message in the 2.0
time-frame and run into something that in fact doesn't work in the final
2.0.
It would help if questions were posed like "we'll be shipping this for
Python 1.5.2 and how...?" or "this is for use/shipment well after 2.0
final ships, so an answer for 2.0 would be great if there is something
better in that release for this problem...", or something mushier and in
between.
--John
--
John W. Baxter Port Ludlow, WA USA jwbnews at scandaroon.com